No-fault divorce

[Tahuti]

People who want a divorce are, by definition, not part of a strong family unit. And so that argument is utterly irrelevant.

I disagree. We nowadays have a culture of perfectionism and short-termism at the same time, so it shouldn't be a matter taken lightly.

 

[Farm Boy]

How do you force someone to stay in a failed marriage?

Unless I'm totally wrong on the arguments along this topic, which is possible, the proponents for "fault divorce" don't actually suggest making divorces hard to get unless they are nut-bags. It's just that, fault divorce. You can get the divorce, but depending on who has done what it actually plays into how things like assets and custody are determined. Husband screwing around on the side while the wife performs all the actual childcare? Wife gets a weighting in the divorce proceedings in her favor asserting primary custody rights. Wife screwing around on the side while the husband is at work? Husband gets a weighting in the divorce proceeding in his favor asserting primary custody rights. As opposed to the system now when the mother by default gets primary custody rights unless something is truly messed up and sometimes even then. Just because. Stuff like that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unless I'm totally wrong on the arguments along this topic, which is possible, the proponents for "fault divorce" don't actually suggest making divorces hard to get unless they are nut-bags. It's just that, fault divorce. You can get the divorce, but depending on who has done what it actually plays into how things like assets and custody are determined. Husband screwing around on the side while the wife performs all the actual childcare? Wife gets a weighting in the divorce proceedings in her favor asserting primary custody rights. Wife screwing around on the side while the husband is at work? Husband gets a weighting in the divorce proceeding in his favor asserting primary custody rights. As opposed to the system now when the mother by default gets primary custody rights unless something is truly messed up and sometimes even then. Just because. Stuff like that.

BE WARNED. I am about to express an extremely unpopular view.

Husband and wife form economic unit for purpose of raising children. There are questions about how 'bringing home bacon' contributes as compared to maintaining the home as compared to actual monitoring of the offspring as compared to ...well all the other aspects of raising children. In any event if you look closely in the vast majority of cases the two parents between them can barely manage it all, at best.

Following a divorce the necessities involved in raising the children remain exactly the same, while all the costs and upkeep of a second dwelling are added in. If it was being barely managed before, it will be impossible now. If it wasn't being managed before it will only be worse. Whatever 'fault' may lead to this situation, that is the consequence if there are children involved.

Oh my God! You had SEX! With someone ELSE! Does not justify that consequence. Sex happens. Get over it. Whether divorce is hard to get or easy as snapping fingers or even not needed because you formed this unit to raise children without government intervention, get over it. Whatever else may incline you to dissolve this partnership with the job half done, get over it. Man (or Woman) up and finish the job you signed on for.

 

[classical_hero]

Traditionally, adultery, yes. Abuse, no. It was only recently that it became illegal to rape your wife. Betcha the same where you live, too.

I'm still unsure how you can legally force someone to stay married. Marriage has very few legal obligations. Divorce is when the legal obligations kick in.

You need to do a bit of reading about divorce, since you claim abuse was never a fault in marriage.

Interesting thing to note that in ancient Rome as well as according to early biblical law, adultery always had to involve a married woman. If the husband had sex with an unmarried woman, it wasn't considered adultery.

The bible clearly states that both were to be punished since it takes two to commit adultery.

 

[Farm Boy]

BE WARNED. I am about to express an extremely unpopular view.

Husband and wife form economic unit for purpose of raising children. There are questions about how 'bringing home bacon' contributes as compared to maintaining the home as compared to actual monitoring of the offspring as compared to ...well all the other aspects of raising children. In any event if you look closely in the vast majority of cases the two parents between them can barely manage it all, at best.

Following a divorce the necessities involved in raising the children remain exactly the same, while all the costs and upkeep of a second dwelling are added in. If it was being barely managed before, it will be impossible now. If it wasn't being managed before it will only be worse. Whatever 'fault' may lead to this situation, that is the consequence if there are children involved.

Oh my God! You had SEX! With someone ELSE! Does not justify that consequence. Sex happens. Get over it. Whether divorce is hard to get or easy as snapping fingers or even not needed because you formed this unit to raise children without government intervention, get over it. Whatever else may incline you to dissolve this partnership with the job half done, get over it. Man (or Woman) up and finish the job you signed on for.

Yet clearly marriage encompasses more things that child rearing, just that it also happens to provide benefits on average along those lines as well. When you suggest that post-menopausal or sterile individuals can't get married, since that isn't the point, then you get a clearer jab at making this argument. And you're right, it won't be popular. You'd be telling me I shouldn't be allowed to be married, for example, and I'd not feel bad at all in coming after you on it. <shrugs>

I don't think the issue is people being able to skate out on their obligations to their kids. That is an issue, but not this issue. Generally this pertains more to people actually wanting to continue to have the responsibility to raise their children when they get floored by somebody who wants out of the unit. Which should be fine. The state trying to force the unit to stay together is a badness. But there is some rankling, justified I think, when the system allows one person to with no repercussions put their own desires ahead of the unit and the children then by default and with blind eye to fault still maintain primary claim to the child rearing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yet clearly marriage encompasses more things that child rearing, just that it also happens to provide benefits on average along those lines as well. When you suggest that post-menopausal or sterile individuals can't get married, since that isn't the point, then you get a clearer jab at making this argument. And you're right, it won't be popular. You'd be telling me I shouldn't be allowed to be married, for example, and I'd not feel bad at all in coming after you on it. <shrugs>

Well, I could be limiting the applicability of my statement to marriages where the task of raising children is in progress and expressing no opinion at all on married units occupied with other efforts. Or maybe my statement still fully applies if the unit was formed for some other purpose such as 'providing life long companionship for both parties' by just substituting that as the job not to be abandoned prior to completion.

By the way, I am a sterile individual with a post menopausal girlfriend and we are both committed to completion of that very task, though we have felt no particular need to have that commitment sanctioned by the government.

 

[Farm Boy]

By the way, I am a sterile individual with a post menopausal girlfriend and we are both committed to completion of that very task, though we have felt no particular need to have that commitment sanctioned by the government.

The government does offer some notable and voluntary rights to individuals to each other should they take the government up on it. But I am glad it's not mandatory. I also think sanctioned is probably the wrong word here. It doesn't carry the right vibe for secular partnership rights.

 

[Gary Childress]

BE WARNED. I am about to express an extremely unpopular view.

Husband and wife form economic unit for purpose of raising children. There are questions about how 'bringing home bacon' contributes as compared to maintaining the home as compared to actual monitoring of the offspring as compared to ...well all the other aspects of raising children. In any event if you look closely in the vast majority of cases the two parents between them can barely manage it all, at best.

Following a divorce the necessities involved in raising the children remain exactly the same, while all the costs and upkeep of a second dwelling are added in. If it was being barely managed before, it will be impossible now. If it wasn't being managed before it will only be worse. Whatever 'fault' may lead to this situation, that is the consequence if there are children involved.

Oh my God! You had SEX! With someone ELSE! Does not justify that consequence. Sex happens. Get over it. Whether divorce is hard to get or easy as snapping fingers or even not needed because you formed this unit to raise children without government intervention, get over it. Whatever else may incline you to dissolve this partnership with the job half done, get over it. Man (or Woman) up and finish the job you signed on for.

Interesting. I have a cousin who divorced his first wife (very pretty woman and a good match in temperament for him I always thought, I believe they were high school sweethearts).

He caught her in bed with a repairman or something one day. If I'm not mistaken he was the one who called for the divorce. They never had children but, after that he had at least two more relationships that I know of. One got him a daughter. Neither of the other two females was anything to "write home about". They were both a little "rough around the edges" as they say.

One was a brat from the local wealthy land owner. Not very attractive and ended up running off somewhere on some joy ride leaving her daughter with my cousin. I don't think my cousin's daughter even knew her mother after the age of 5 or so. The last one I know of was a biker chick. What an interesting looker she was (at least compared to my cousin).

I still have a photo of my cousin and his first wife. What a cute couple and vibrant pair they were. His life probably would have been totally different I think had he forgiven her and moved on with life. I don't know what happened to her but she was a very sweet young lady all the times I met her. She was a "good catch" as they say. But he threw her back over one mistake. And he "paid for it" I can almost guarantee.

 

[Farm Boy]

People who trust the hardest get burnt the most painfully when it's betrayed. I don't think I would be up for a lifetime of doubt in my partner. I have enough of that about everything already.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People who trust the hardest get burnt the most painfully when it's betrayed. I don't think I would be up for a lifetime of doubt in my partner. I have enough of that about everything already.

Here's a thought...figure out why you have the standard you are doubting.

The origins of 'evil adultery' go back further than human history...it's primate behavior. Males want to provide for offspring if the offspring is 'theirs', not if it came from some interloping male. This basic primate behavior has made it into holy books and family law and deep into our minds...despite being totally irrelevant in our times.

I was a sailor. Going to sea, with attendant forced celibacy, was my job...and celibacy was not a part that I considered a great benefit. In fact I thought it was one of the serious drawbacks. 'Staying faithful' was made easier by the fact that there were no women for however many hundreds of miles in any direction. My wife, however, did not sign up for that job. She also was not isolated, and was a very attractive and healthily driven woman.

I have all the genetic instincts of any other primate, and have read all the holy books and a few of the law books...and if she got laid while I was at sea...good for her! No harm came to me from it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Here's a thought...figure out why you have the standard you are doubting.

The origins of 'evil adultery' go back further than human history...it's primate behavior. Males want to provide for offspring if the offspring is 'theirs', not if it came from some interloping male. This basic primate behavior has made it into holy books and family law and deep into our minds...despite being totally irrelevant in our times.

I was a sailor. Going to sea, with attendant forced celibacy, was my job...and celibacy was not a part that I considered a great benefit. In fact I thought it was one of the serious drawbacks. 'Staying faithful' was made easier by the fact that there were no women for however many hundreds of miles in any direction. My wife, however, did not sign up for that job. She also was not isolated, and was a very attractive and healthily driven woman.

I have all the genetic instincts of any other primate, and have read all the holy books and a few of the law books...and if she got laid while I was at sea...good for her! No harm came to me from it.

We can leave the "monkey brain" out of it. We signed up for each other. We agreed to do it exclusively. And I have. I have no reasons to doubt that she has either. If she wants to change the agreement, she can talk to me about it. Not talking to me about it and doing it anyways, just like if I did so to her, is a betrayal of trust. It's a betrayal in petty ways and important ones. For example I've never been tested for any sort of STD. It's never been on my radar as a possibility. That's just a little one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We can leave the "monkey brain" out of it. We signed up for each other. We agreed to do it exclusively. And I have. I have no reasons to doubt that she has either. If she wants to change the agreement, she can talk to me about it. Not talking to me about it and doing it anyways, just like if I did so to her, is a betrayal of trust. It's a betrayal in petty ways and important ones. For example I've never been tested for any sort of STD. It's never been on my radar as a possibility. That's just a little one.

Fair enough. Your terms of agreement are yours. Your 'enforcement policy' is also yours. As long as both parties are fully aware of the terms I certainly wouldn't find any fault. I'm just suggesting that in some cases there isn't really any clear laying out of terms, and society isn't really helpful. We are bombarded with the idea that infidelity is absolutely unforgivable, so most people assume that's part of the terms. Any assumptions in the terms of an agreement are dangerous, especially if the consequences are summary dissolution of the agreement.

 

[Cutlass]

I think, if I understand his point, I'm sort of with Farm Boy here. Marriage is in effect a contract between 2 people. What, exactly, that contract contains is not in the marriage ceremony, but in the marriage. The 2 people involved can have it be whatever they want it to be. If they are satisfied with it, then there is little public interest in interfering. And same is true if they are not.

But it is a contract. And it is a contract with implications for property and responsibility to more than just those 2 people. And because of that the state has an interest in how the contract is formed, and how it is dissolved.

And contracts can be dissolved. Any contract can be dissolved.

But here's the thing about dissolving contracts: 1 side cannot unilaterally dissolve the contract at will with no consequences. The divorce in legal terms is the use of the legal process to reach an agreement concerning the dissolution of the contract of marriage.

 

[Zelig]

Yet clearly marriage encompasses more things that child rearing, just that it also happens to provide benefits on average along those lines as well.

Only reason I date is to leverage transactive memory to give myself more of a competitive advantage against others.

Obviously if I find the best transactive memory partner, I'd want to wife her to keep others' grubby minds out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only reason I date is to leverage transactive memory to give myself more of a competitive advantage against others.

Obviously if I find the best transactive memory partner, I'd want to wife her to keep others' grubby minds out.

But the more elements a transactive memory system has the more effectively it operates.

 

[History_Buff]

Really? My business had a thirty day net agreement with a supplier. My guys could go in and pick up whatever they needed, and they billed me every thirty days. You think I could break that agreement arbitrarily without any reason? Or even with a reason...say;I just don't want to pay you. If one day I couldn't complete a job because they had decided for no reason to change our agreement to cash only and my guys couldn't pick up materials you can bet I'd have had a case if I took them to court.

I contracted with customers. Sometimes they paid in advance, at least partly, but usually they paid as the work progressed. If halfway through the job they paid me for the work to date and I said 'oh I've decided not to finish this job...no reason really,' do you think there wouldn't be consequences? If I showed up at the job site with a thousand dollars worth of materials and they said 'oh we changed our mind' do you think I wouldn't have wanted a reason, and been legally entitled to not just any reason but a bloody good one?

I never said that restitution wouldn't be provided where one party was breaking the deal, to the detriment of the other. But what the law generally will not do is force you to continue to contract; instead the idea is to restore both parties to the condition there were in before the contract was entered in to. Similarly, should all parties to a contract agree that they no longer wish to continue under the terms of the contract, they are free to dissolve it, and the law will not pro-actively intervene.

The state doesn't force you to engage in contracts you do not wish to be in*, nor should it force you to remain in a marriage you do not wish to be in.



*inane anti-tax arguments by wackjob libertarians notwithstanding.

 

[Tahuti]

But it is a contract. And it is a contract with implications for property and responsibility to more than just those 2 people. And because of that the state has an interest in how the contract is formed, and how it is dissolved.

And contracts can be dissolved. Any contract can be dissolved.

There lies perhaps the difference. I view marriage as a foundation act and a covenant that two people into one unit and link their parents and siblings' families into one.

 

[Arwon]

I notice nobody in favour of using the state to dictate how other people enter into and exit marital relationships has engaged with the post about violence and suicide rates. Trivial things when you're such a utopian busybody I guess.

 

[Tahuti]

I notice nobody in favour of using the state to dictate how other people enter into and exit marital relationships has engaged with the post about violence and suicide rates. Trivial things when you're such a utopian busybody I guess.

In the end, its about making trade offs. I'd rather have domestic abuse and spouse suicide over ruining children's lives and facilitating all you have managed to an even greater degree.

 

[Camikaze]

This discussion strikes me as treating marriage fairly strangely. It's a legal category of relationship. It's another form of a de facto relationship (the name 'de facto' is a product of history more than anything else; it's not implying that the relationship is not a legal one). A de facto relationship isn't something you register for. If your relationship has characteristics A, B and C, the government will treat you as being in a de facto relationship. It's not really a matter of choice, other than the choice involved in being in a relationship with those characteristics. A 'marriage' is just the government recognising that you've also had some sort of ceremony which indicates an intention for a greater degree of permanence. Should a de facto relationship cease to have characteristics A, B and C, it will cease to be a de facto relationship. It seems odd to suggest that, should a marriage also cease to have characteristics A, B and C, the government should insist on continuing to recognise it as a marriage, where it doesn't do the same for de facto relationships. It would no longer fit the purposes for which the legal category exists. If 'marriage' is descriptive of the relationship, if the nature of that relationship changes, it simply doesn't make sense to continue applying the same term to it.

Unless you're actually saying that the government should force individuals to live together and share property, insisting on regarding couples as 'married', even when they have separated, or no longer have any meaningful relationship to speak of, just means that the property will not be distributed according to the actual nature of the relationship. Divorce is essentially just signifying that this distribution should take place, as it does with de facto relationships. This state of affairs is quite inefficient, and historically unfair to women.

I'm highly sceptical as to the arguments in the OP. The supposed detriments do not strike me as necessary results of no-fault divorce. Rather, they're probably description of how no-fault divorce has operated within a given system of law. With child custody, for instance, there's no reason why no-fault divorce would necessarily grant women greater custody rights over children; that's simply a quirk of the system in which no-fault divorce is being observed.